"he warp factors above warp 10 in the TOS, such as the one above, were slower than warp 10 on the new scale. According to The Star Trek Encyclopedia, warp 6 (new scale) is equal to 392c (392 times the speed of light, c) and about warp 7.3 on the old scale, whereas warp 9.2 new, to about 1649c and warp 11.8 on the old scale."

Once you get over about 50% C, time and relativity factors enter into play. If you COULD do it close to the speed of light, your clock would slow down to the point where it wouldn't be 20 years for you.

Of course, there's all that tedious speeding up and slowing down, those take some time.

SaveTheHubble
April 24th, 2007 11:10pm

Doesn't warp bend space rather than make you move through it? So you would not have the relativistic time dilation effects.

Practical Economist
April 24th, 2007 11:58pm

Also, don't fall for that 'habitable' planet stuff. Planet with that length year is not going to have an atmosphere - they are just trolling for links.

Practical Economist
April 25th, 2007 12:00am

Not that there is a planet there anyway. It's not like they have ever actually seen a planet. They just look at minute periodic fluctuations in light intensity and claim that means they've discovered a planet.

Practical Economist
April 25th, 2007 12:02am

> Doesn't warp bend space rather than make you move through it?

That was the explanation in the pilot episode that went unaired, but the explanations changed after that.